- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 32933 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ARUN R. S/O. LATE RANGAREDDY R. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A: NO.59/2, 9TH CROSS SWIMMING POOL EXTENSION MALLESWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S.K.SANJAY S/O. LATE S.G. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A: NO.2895/2 3RD MAIN ROAD V.V. MOHALLA MYSORE - 570 002. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN O.S.NO.7311/2025 DATED 18/10/2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU, INSOFAR AS IT DECLINES TO GRANT EX PARTE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ETC. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Saravana S. for petitioner. 2. Parties to the petition shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who has initiated a suit in O.S.No.7311/2025 against the respondent- defendant before the trial Court seeking following relief: "Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court be pleased to grant the following relief's:-: a) To pass judgment and decree of permanent injunction restrainignt he defendant, his agents, servants or any person/s claiming for or under his or any one on his behalf interfering with plaintiff peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. b) Awarding Court costs, together with such other relief or relief's as this Honourable - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 court may deem fit to grant to the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case." 4. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein he sought for an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, hench-men, servants or anybody claiming under his, in any way interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, pending disposal of the suit by dispensing notice to the defendant. The affidavit was also annexed to the said application. 5. The trial Court, after hearing the petitioner- plaintiff on the application for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, passed an order of issuing suit summons and emergent notice to the defendant on I.A.No.I. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 6. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant, as the notice to the respondent-defendant is not yet served before the trial Court on the suit proceedings or on the application. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff contends that the trial Court, without expressing any reasons or providing any finding, has merely ordered for issuance of notice under the premise that without hearing the defendants, no order could be passed on the application. Hence, he seeks to allow his petition. 8. It is seen that while passing the order on application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, the trial Court has stated that the plaintiff has not produced any document at the stage of the proceedings to substantiate his possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and the plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 has ordered to issue suit summons and emergent notice to the defendant on I.A.No.I. 9. When an application is filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, it is the duty and obligation of the trial Court to consider the averments made in the affidavit annexed to the application and either grant or reject an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. Therefore, the trial Court would have to advert to the materials placed by the plaintiff and come to a conclusion to either grant or reject the interim order. 10. It cannot be merely stated that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction and issued suit summons and emergent notice to the defendant on I.A.No.I. The trial Court will have to pass an order, recording its finding and reasoning either granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 11. It is no doubt that there are two options for the trial Court; One is that issue notice if the delay would not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and the second is that if it comes to a conclusion that there is an urgent need for grant of an interim order, it can do so by dispensing notice to the defendant and recorded its finding. 12. In the present case on hand, no such thing is done except for stating that the plaintiff has not produced any document of the proceedings, which is again disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner, as he has produced several documents along with his plaint. It is relevant to note that the trial Court in many of the cases is making out such orders without recording any reasons while granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. 13. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the observations at paragraphs 32, 33, 34 and 35 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shiv - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 Kumar Chadha v/s Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others reported in (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 161, which reads as under: "32. Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case. The courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed. That is why Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code requires that in all cases the court shall, before grant of an injunction, direct notice of the application to be given to the opposite-party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that “where it is proposed to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, the court shall record the reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by delay…”. 33. It has come to our notice that in spite of the aforesaid statutory requirement, the courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that court has prejudged the issues involved in the suit. According to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in view of the proviso to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for any argument. When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the court cannot ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant. 34. The imperative nature of the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code. Before the proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said “the court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite-party”. The proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where court proposes to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite-party, being of the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 be defeated by delay. The condition so introduced is that the court “shall record the reasons” why an ex parte order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In this background, the requirement for recording the reasons for grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be a mere formality. This requirement is consistent with the principle, that a party to a suit, who is being restrained from exercising a right which such party claims to exercise either under a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following the requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been followed. The party which invokes the jurisdiction of the court for grant of an order of restraint against a party, without affording an opportunity to him of being heard, must satisfy the court about the gravity of the situation and court has to consider briefly these factors in the ex parte order. We are quite conscious of the fact that there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the court or the authority concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be complied with but non-compliance therewith will not vitiate the order so passed. But same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. The Parliament has prescribed a particular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex parte orders have far-reaching effect, as such a condition has been imposed that court must record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance with the proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the proviso by the Parliament shall be a futile exercise and that part of Rule 3 will be a surplusage for all practical purposes. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved and accepted in well-known cases of Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJ Ch 373] and Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : 63 IA 372 : 37 Cri LJ 897]. This Court has also expressed the same view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act in the case of Ramchandra Keshav Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare [(1975) 1 SCC 559 : AIR 1975 SC 915]. 35. As such whenever a court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other side, it must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the object of granting injunction - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not passed. But any such ex parte order should be in force up to a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned. In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol. 1, at page 514, reference has been made to the views of the English Courts saying: “Ex parte injunctions are for cases of real urgency where there has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion…. An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, usually the next motion day….” 14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Time City Infrastructure and Housing Limited Lucknow v/s State of U.P. and Others reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1674 at paragraph 5 held as under: 5. Looking to the scheme of Order 39, CPC it is clear that ordinarily an order of injunction may not be granted ex parte. The opposite party must be issued a notice and heard before an injunction may be granted. Rule 3 carves out an exception in favour of granting an injunction without notice to the opposite party where it appears that the object - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 of granting injunction would be defeated by the delay. Conferment of this privilege on the party seeking an injunction is accompanied by an obligation cast on the court to record reasons for its opinion and an obligation cast on the applicant to comply with the requirements of Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso. Both the provisions are mandatory. The applicant gets an injunction without notice but subject to the condition of complying with Clauses (a) and (b) above said." 15. Therefore, it is an obligation caused by the trial Court and it is not option for the trial Court while dealing with such an application to record its reasons and findings and either grant or reject the application, but the fundamental rule is to record its reasons while disposing of such application. No doubt, it is true that it is at the discretion of the trial Court to either grant or reject on the basis of the documents that are produced. Nevertheless, the trial Court would have to record its reasons. In the present case on hand, it has neither recorded any reasons nor extracted the documents that are produced to grant an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 16. Under the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to remit this matter back to the trial Court for consideration of this application for grant or refusal of ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction and while doing so, it shall record proper reasons. 17. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC and pass suitable orders in accordance with law; iii. It is made clear that the trial Court shall dispose of the application on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made herein, as this Court has not delved into the merits of the application and it is merely - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48792 WP No. 32933 of 2025 remitted the matter to the trial Court to reconsider the same afresh; iv. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to advance the matter and move the Court for seeking necessarily reliefs. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3